[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-eastlake-dnsext-2929bis) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 5395

INTERNET-DRAFT                                    Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
Obsoletes RFC 2929                                 Motorola Laboratories
Updates RFCs 1183 and 3597
Expires: February 2008                                       August 2007



              Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations
              ------ ---- ------ ----- -------------------
                   <draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-06.txt>



Status of This Document

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Distribution of this draft is unlimited.  It is intended to become
   the new BCP 42 obsoleting RFC 2929.  Comments should be sent to the
   DNS Working Group mailing list <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html



Abstract

   Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) parameter assignment
   considerations are specified for the allocation of Domain Name System
   (DNS) resource record types, CLASSes, operation codes, error codes,
   DNS protocol message header bits, and AFSDB resource record subtypes.







D. Eastlake 3rd                                                 [Page 1]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations             August 2007


Table of Contents

      Status of This Document....................................1
      Abstract...................................................1

      Table of Contents..........................................2

      1. Introduction............................................3
      2. DNS Query/Response Headers..............................3
      2.1 One Spare Bit?.........................................4
      2.2 Opcode Assignment......................................4
      2.3 RCODE Assignment.......................................5
      3. DNS Resource Records....................................6
      3.1 RRTYPE IANA Considerations.............................7
      3.1.1 DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy.........................8
      3.1.2 DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines.........................9
      3.1.3 Special Note on the OPT RR...........................9
      3.1.4 The AFSDB RR Subtype Field...........................9
      3.2 RR CLASS IANA Considerations..........................10
      3.3 Label Considerations..................................12
      3.3.1 Label Types.........................................12
      3.3.2 Label Contents and Use..............................12
      4. Security Considerations................................12
      5. IANA Considerations....................................13

      Annex A: RRTYPE Allocation Template.......................14

      Additional IPR Provisions.................................16
      Copyright.................................................16

      Normative References......................................17
      Informative References....................................18

      Author's Address..........................................19
      Expiration and File Name..................................19
      Disclaimer................................................19
















D. Eastlake 3rd                                                 [Page 2]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations             August 2007


1. Introduction

   The Domain Name System (DNS) provides replicated distributed secure
   hierarchical databases which store "resource records" (RRs) under
   domain names.  DNS data is structured into CLASSes and zones which
   can be independently maintained.  See [RFC1034], [RFC1035],
   [RFC2136], [RFC2181], and [RFC4033] familiarity with which is
   assumed.

   This document provides, either directly or by reference, the general
   IANA parameter assignment considerations applying across DNS query
   and response headers and all RRs.  There may be additional IANA
   considerations that apply to only a particular RRTYPE or
   query/response opcode.  See the specific RFC defining that RRTYPE or
   query/response opcode for such considerations if they have been
   defined, except for AFSDB RR considerations [RFC1183] which are
   included herein. This RFC obsoletes [RFC2929].

   IANA currently maintains a web page of DNS parameters. See
   <http://www.iana.org/numbers.htm>.

   "IETF Standards Action", "IETF Consensus", "Specification Required",
   and "Private Use" are as defined in [RFC2434].



2. DNS Query/Response Headers

   The header for DNS queries and responses contains field/bits in the
   following diagram taken from [RFC2136] and [RFC2929]:

                                              1  1  1  1  1  1
                0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  0  1  2  3  4  5
               +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
               |                      ID                       |
               +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
               |QR|   Opcode  |AA|TC|RD|RA| Z|AD|CD|   RCODE   |
               +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
               |                QDCOUNT/ZOCOUNT                |
               +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
               |                ANCOUNT/PRCOUNT                |
               +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
               |                NSCOUNT/UPCOUNT                |
               +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
               |                    ARCOUNT                    |
               +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

   The ID field identifies the query and is echoed in the response so
   they can be matched.



D. Eastlake 3rd                                                 [Page 3]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations             August 2007


   The QR bit indicates whether the header is for a query or a response.

   The AA, TC, RD, RA, AD, and CD bits are each theoretically meaningful
   only in queries or only in responses, depending on the bit.  However,
   some DNS implementations copy the query header as the initial value
   of the response header without clearing bits.  Thus any attempt to
   use a "query" bit with a different meaning in a response or to define
   a query meaning for a "response" bit is dangerous given existing
   implementation.  Such meanings may only be assigned by an IETF
   Standards Action.

   The unsigned integer fields query count (QDCOUNT), answer count
   (ANCOUNT), authority count (NSCOUNT), and additional information
   count (ARCOUNT) express the number of records in each section for all
   opcodes except Update [RFC2136].  These fields have the same
   structure and data type for Update but are instead the counts for the
   zone (ZOCOUNT), prerequisite (PRCOUNT), update (UPCOUNT), and
   additional information (ARCOUNT) sections.



2.1 One Spare Bit?

   There have been ancient DNS implementations for which the Z bit being
   on in a query meant that only a response from the primary server for
   a zone is acceptable.  It is believed that current DNS
   implementations ignore this bit.

   Assigning a meaning to the Z bit requires an IETF Standards Action.



2.2 Opcode Assignment

   Currently DNS OpCodes are assigned as follows:

          OpCode Name                      Reference

           0     Query                     [RFC1035]
           1     IQuery  (Inverse Query, Obsolete) [RFC3425]
           2     Status                    [RFC1035]
           3     available for assignment
           4     Notify                    [RFC1996]
           5     Update                    [RFC2136]
          6-15   available for assignment

   New OpCode assignments require an IETF Standards Action as modified
   by [RFC4020].




D. Eastlake 3rd                                                 [Page 4]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations             August 2007


2.3 RCODE Assignment

   It would appear from the DNS header above that only four bits of
   RCODE, or response/error code are available.  However, RCODEs can
   appear not only at the top level of a DNS response but also inside
   OPT RRs [RFC2671], TSIG RRs [RFC2845], and TKEY RRs [RFC2930].  The
   OPT RR provides an eight bit extension resulting in a 12 bit RCODE
   field and the TSIG and TKEY RRs have a 16 bit RCODE field.

   Error codes appearing in the DNS header and in these three RR types
   all refer to the same error code space with the single exception of
   error code 16 which has a different meaning in the OPT RR from its
   meaning in other contexts.  See table below.

        RCODE   Name    Description                        Reference
        Decimal
          Hexadecimal
         0    NoError   No Error                           [RFC1035]
         1    FormErr   Format Error                       [RFC1035]
         2    ServFail  Server Failure                     [RFC1035]
         3    NXDomain  Non-Existent Domain                [RFC1035]
         4    NotImp    Not Implemented                    [RFC1035]
         5    Refused   Query Refused                      [RFC1035]
         6    YXDomain  Name Exists when it should not     [RFC2136]
         7    YXRRSet   RR Set Exists when it should not   [RFC2136]
         8    NXRRSet   RR Set that should exist does not  [RFC2136]
         9    NotAuth   Server Not Authoritative for zone  [RFC2136]
        10    NotZone   Name not contained in zone         [RFC2136]
        11 - 15         Available for assignment
        16    BADVERS   Bad OPT Version                    [RFC2671]
        16    BADSIG    TSIG Signature Failure             [RFC2845]
        17    BADKEY    Key not recognized                 [RFC2845]
        18    BADTIME   Signature out of time window       [RFC2845]
        19    BADMODE   Bad TKEY Mode                      [RFC2930]
        20    BADNAME   Duplicate key name                 [RFC2930]
        21    BADALG    Algorithm not supported            [RFC2930]
        22    BADTRUC   Bad Truncation                     [RFC4635]
        23 - 3,840
          0x0017 - 0x0F00   Available for assignment

        3,841 - 4,095
          0x0F01 - 0x0FFF   Private Use

        4,096 - 65,534
          0x1000 - 0xFFFE   Available for assignment

        65,535
          0xFFFF            Reserved, can only be allocated by an IETF
                            Standards Action.



D. Eastlake 3rd                                                 [Page 5]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations             August 2007


   Since it is important that RCODEs be understood for interoperability,
   assignment of new RCODE listed above as "available for assignment"
   requires an IETF Consensus.



3. DNS Resource Records

   All RRs have the same top level format shown in the figure below
   taken from [RFC1035].

                                       1  1  1  1  1  1
         0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  0  1  2  3  4  5
       +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
       |                                               |
       /                                               /
       /                      NAME                     /
       /                                               /
       +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
       |                      TYPE                     |
       +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
       |                     CLASS                     |
       +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
       |                      TTL                      |
       |                                               |
       +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
       |                   RDLENGTH                    |
       +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--|
       /                     RDATA                     /
       /                                               /
       +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

   NAME is an owner name, i.e., the name of the node to which this
   resource record pertains.  NAMEs are specific to a CLASS as described
   in section 3.2.  NAMEs consist of an ordered sequence of one or more
   labels each of which has a label type [RFC1035], [RFC2671].

   TYPE is a two octet unsigned integer containing one of the RRTYPE
   codes.  See section 3.1.

   CLASS is a two octet unsigned integer containing one of the RR CLASS
   codes.  See section 3.2.

   TTL is a four octet (32 bit) unsigned integer that specifies, for
   data TYPEs, the number of seconds that the resource record may be
   cached before the source of the information should again be
   consulted.  Zero is interpreted to mean that the RR can only be used
   for the transaction in progress.

   RDLENGTH is an unsigned 16 bit integer that specifies the length in


D. Eastlake 3rd                                                 [Page 6]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations             August 2007


   octets of the RDATA field.

   RDATA is a variable length string of octets that constitutes the
   resource. The format of this information varies according to the TYPE
   and in some cases the CLASS of the resource record.



3.1 RRTYPE IANA Considerations

   There are three subcategories of RRTYPE numbers: data TYPEs, QTYPEs,
   and Meta-TYPEs.

   Data TYPEs are the means of storing data.  QTYPES can only be used in
   queries.  Meta-TYPEs designate transient data associated with a
   particular DNS message and in some cases can also be used in queries.
   Thus far, data TYPEs have been assigned from 1 upwards plus the block
   from 100 through 103 and from 32,768 upward, while Q and Meta-TYPEs
   have been assigned from 255 downwards except for the OPT Meta-RR
   which is assigned TYPE 41.  There have been DNS implementations which
   made caching decisions based on the top bit of the bottom byte of the
   RRTYPE.

   There are currently three Meta-TYPEs assigned: OPT [RFC2671], TSIG
   [RFC2845], and TKEY [RFC2930]. There are currently five QTYPEs
   assigned: * (ALL), MAILA, MAILB, AXFR, and IXFR.

   RRTYPEs have mnemonics which must be completely disjoint from the
   mnemonics used for CLASSes and which must match the following regular
   expression:

         [A-Z][A-Z0-9-]*

   Considerations for the allocation of new RRTYPEs are as follows:

     Decimal
   Hexadecimal

     0
   0x0000 - RRTYPE zero is used as a special indicator for the SIG RR
          [RFC2931], [RFC4034] and in other circumstances and must never
          be allocated for ordinary use.

     1 - 127
   0x0001 - 0x007F - remaining RRTYPEs in this range are assigned for
          data TYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy as specified in
          section 3.1.1.





D. Eastlake 3rd                                                 [Page 7]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations             August 2007


     128 - 255
   0x0080 - 0x00FF - remaining RRTYPEs in this rage are assigned for Q
          and Meta TYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy as
          specified in section 3.1.1.

     256 - 61,439
   0x0100 - 0xEFFF - assigned for data RRTYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE
          Allocation Policy as specified in section 3.1.1.

     61,440 - 65,279
   0xF000 - 0xFEFF - reserved for future use. IETF Consensus required to
          define use.

     65,280 - 65,534
   0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use.

     65,535
   0xFFFF - Reserved, can only be assigned by an IETF Standards Action.



3.1.1 DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy

   Parameter values specified in Section 3.1 above as assigned based on
   DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy are allocated by Expert Review if they
   meet the two requirements listed below. There will be a pool of a
   small number of Experts appointed by the IESG. Each application will
   be ruled on by an Expert selected by IANA. In any case where the
   selected Expert is unavailable or states they have a conflict of
   interest, IANA may selected another Expert from the pool.

   Some guidelines for the Experts are given in Section 3.1.2. RRTYPEs
   that do not meet the requirements below, may nonetheless be allocated
   by IETF Standards Action as modified by [RFC4020].

   1. A complete template as specified in Annex A has been posted for
      three weeks to the namedroppers@ops.ietf.org mailing list before
      the Expert Review decision.
         Note that partially completed or draft templates may be posted
      directly by the applicant for comment and discussion but the
      formal posting to start the three week period is made by IANA.

   2. The RR for which a RRTYPE code is being requested is either (a) a
      data TYPE which can be handled as an Unknown RR as described in
      [RFC3597] or (b) a Meta-Type who processing is optional, i.e.,
      which it is safe to simply discard.
         Note that such RRs may include additional section processing
      provided such processing is optional.

   IANA shall maintain a public archive of approved templates.


D. Eastlake 3rd                                                 [Page 8]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations             August 2007


3.1.2 DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines

   The selected DNS RRTYPE Expert is required to monitor discussion of
   the proposed RRTYPE which may occur on the namedroppers mailing list
   and may consult with other technical experts as necessary. The Expert
   should normally reject any RRTYPE allocation request which meets one
   or more of the following criterion:

   1. Was documented in a manner that was not sufficiently clear to
      evaluate or implement.

   2. Proposed RRTYPE or RRTYPEs affect DNS processing and do not meet
      the criteria in point 2 in Section 3.1.1 above.

   3. The documentation of the proposed RRTYPE or RRTYPEs is incomplete.
      (Additional documentation can be provided during the public
      comment period or by the Expert.)

   4. Application use as documented makes incorrect assumptions about
      DNS protocol behavior, such as wild cards, CNAME, DNAME etc.

   5. An excessive number of RRTYPE values is being requested when the
      purpose could be met with a smaller number or with Private Use
      values.



3.1.3 Special Note on the OPT RR

   The OPT (OPTion) RR, RRTYPE 41, and its IANA Considerations are
   specified in [RFC2671].  Its primary purpose is to extend the
   effective field size of various DNS fields including RCODE, label
   type, OpCode, flag bits, and RDATA size.  In particular, for
   resolvers and servers that recognize it, it extends the RCODE field
   from 4 to 12 bits.



3.1.4 The AFSDB RR Subtype Field

   The AFSDB RR [RFC1183] is a CLASS insensitive RR that has the same
   RDATA field structure as the MX RR but the 16 bit unsigned integer
   field at the beginning of the RDATA is interpreted as a subtype as
   follows:

     Decimal
   Hexadecimal

     0
   0x0000 -  Reserved, allocation requires IETF Standards Action.


D. Eastlake 3rd                                                 [Page 9]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations             August 2007


     1
   0x0001 - Andrews File Service v3.0 Location Service [RFC1183].

     2
   0x0002 - DCE/NCA root cell directory node [RFC1183].

     3 - 65,279
   0x0003 - 0xFEFF - Allocation by IETF Consensus.

     65,280 - 65,534
   0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use.

     65,535
   0xFFFF - Reserved, allocation requires IETF Standards Action.



3.2 RR CLASS IANA Considerations

   There are currently two subcategories of DNS CLASSes: normal, data
   containing classes and QCLASSes that are only meaningful in queries
   or updates.

   DNS CLASSes have been little used but constitute another dimension of
   the DNS distributed database.  In particular, there is no necessary
   relationship between the name space or root servers for one data
   CLASS and those for another data CLASS.  The same DNS NAME can have
   completely different meanings in different CLASSes. The label types
   are the same and the null label is usable only as root in every
   CLASS.  As global networking and DNS have evolved, the IN, or
   Internet, CLASS has dominated DNS use.

   As yet there has not be a requirement for "meta-CLASSes". That would
   be a CLASS to designate transient data associated with a particular
   DNS message and which might be usable in queries.  However, it is
   possible that their might be a future requirement for one or more
   "meta-CLASSes".

   CLASSes have mnemonics which must be completely disjoint from the
   mnemonics used for RRTYPEs and which must match the following regular
   expression:

         [A-Z][A-Z0-9-]*

   The current CLASS assignments and considerations for future
   assignments are as follows:






D. Eastlake 3rd                                                [Page 10]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations             August 2007


     Decimal
   Hexadecimal

     0
   0x0000 - Reserved, assignment requires an IETF Standards Action.

     1
   0x0001 - Internet (IN).

     2
   0x0002 - Available for assignment by IETF Consensus as a data CLASS.

     3
   0x0003 - Chaos (CH) [Moon1981].

     4
   0x0004 - Hesiod (HS) [Dyer1987].

     5 - 127
   0x0005 - 0x007F - available for assignment by IETF Consensus for data
          CLASSes only.

     128 - 253
   0x0080 - 0x00FD - available for assignment by IETF Consensus for
          QCLASSes and meta-CLASSes only.

     254
   0x00FE - QCLASS NONE [RFC2136].

     255
   0x00FF - QCLASS * (ANY) [RFC1035].

     256 - 32,767
   0x0100 - 0x7FFF - Assigned by IETF Consensus.

     32,768 - 57,343
   0x8000 - 0xDFFF - Assigned for data CLASSes only based on
          Specification Required as defined in [RFC2434].

     57,344 - 65,279
   0xE000 - 0xFEFF - Assigned for QCLASSes and meta-CLASSes only based
          on Specification Required as defined in [RFC2434].

     65,280 - 65,534
   0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use.

     65,535
   0xFFFF - Reserved, can only be assigned by an IETF Standards Action.




D. Eastlake 3rd                                                [Page 11]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations             August 2007


3.3 Label Considerations

   DNS NAMEs are sequences of labels [RFC1035].



3.3.1 Label Types

   At the present time, there are two categories of label types, data
   labels and compression labels.  Compression labels are pointers to
   data labels elsewhere within an RR or DNS message and are intended to
   shorten the wire encoding of NAMEs.

   The two existing data label types are sometimes referred to as Text
   and Binary.  Text labels can, in fact, include any octet value
   including zero value octets but many current uses involve only [US-
   ASCII].  For retrieval, Text labels are defined to treat ASCII upper
   and lower case letter codes as matching [RFC4343].  Binary labels are
   bit sequences [RFC2673]. The Binary label type is Experimental
   [RFC3363].

   IANA considerations for label types are given in [RFC2671].



3.3.2 Label Contents and Use

   The last label in each NAME is "ROOT" which is the zero length label.
   By definition, the null or ROOT label can not be used for any other
   NAME purpose.

   NAMEs are local to a CLASS.  The Hesiod [Dyer1987] and Chaos
   [Moon1981] CLASSes are for essentially local use.  The IN or Internet
   CLASS is thus the only DNS CLASS in global use on the Internet at
   this time.

   A somewhat out-of-date description of name allocation in the IN Class
   is given in [RFC1591].  Some information on reserved top level domain
   names is in BCP 32 [RFC2606].



4. Security Considerations

   This document addresses IANA considerations in the allocation of
   general DNS parameters, not security.  See [RFC4033], [RFC4034], and
   [RFC4035] for secure DNS considerations.





D. Eastlake 3rd                                                [Page 12]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations             August 2007


5. IANA Considerations

   This document consists entirely of DNS IANA Considerations and
   includes the following changes from its predecessor [RFC2929].  It
   affects the registry currently at
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters and its subregistries.

   1. In the Domain Name System "Resource record (RR) TYPES and QTYPEs"
      registry, it changes most "IETF Consensus" and all "Specification
      Required" allocation policies for RRTYPEs to be "DNS TYPE
      Allocation Policy" and changes the policy for RRTYPE 0xFFFF to be
      "IETF Standards Action".  It also specifies the "DNS TYPE
      Allocation Policy" which is based on Expert Review with additional
      provisions and restrictions, including the sending of a completed
      copy of the template in Annex A to <TBD@iana.org>, in most cases,
      and requires "IETF Standards Action as modified by [RFC4020]" in
      other cases.  IANA shall establish a process for accepting such
      templates, posting them to the namedroppers@ops.ietf.org mailing
      list, selecting one of such Experts as have been appointed to
      review such template form applications, and archive and make
      available all approved RRTYPE allocation templates.  See Section
      3.1 and Annex A for more details.

   2. For Opcodes (see Section 2.2), it changes "IETF Standards Action"
      allocation requirements to add "as modified by [RFC4020]".

   3. It changes the allocation status of RCODE 0xFFFF to be IETF
      Standards Action required. See Section 2.3.

   4. It adds an IANA allocation policy for the AFSDB RR Subtype field
      which requires the creation of a new registry. See Section 3.1.4.

   5. It splits Specification Required CLASSes into data CLASSes and
      query or meta CLASSes. See Section 3.2.


















D. Eastlake 3rd                                                [Page 13]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations             August 2007


Annex A: RRTYPE Allocation Template


                 DNS RRTYPE PARAMETER ALLOCATION TEMPLATE

   This template is to be submitted to IANA for processing by emailing
   the template to <TDB>@iana.org.


   A.    Submission Date:


   B.    Contact Information for submitter:
               Name:
               Email Address:
               International telephone number:
               Other contact handles:


   C.    Motivation for the new RRTYPE application?
         Please keep this part at a high level to inform the Expert and
         reviewers about uses of the RRTYPE. Remember most reviewers
         will be DNS experts that may have limited knowledge of your
         application space.


   D.    Description of the proposed RR type.  This description can be
         provided in-line in the template, as an attachment or with a
         publicly available URL:


   E.    What existing RRTYPE or RRTYPEs come closest to filling that
         need and why are they unsatisfactory?


   F.    What mnemonic is requested for the new RRTYPE (optional)?
         Note: this can be left blank and the mnemonic decided after the
         template is accepted.


   G.    Does the requested RRTYPE make use of any existing IANA
         Registry or require the creation of a new IANA Registry and if
         so what is that registry or registries?
         If a new registry is needed, specify allocation policy for it
         and initial contents.


   H.    Does the proposal require/expect any changes in DNS
         servers/resolvers that prevent the new type from being
         processed as an unknown RRTYPE (see [RFC3597])?


D. Eastlake 3rd                                                [Page 14]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations             August 2007


   I.    Comments:



















































D. Eastlake 3rd                                                [Page 15]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations             August 2007


Additional IPR Provisions

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
   ipr@ietf.org.



Copyright

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.



















D. Eastlake 3rd                                                [Page 16]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations             August 2007


Normative References

   [RFC1034] - Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Concepts and
   Facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.

   [RFC1035] - Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and
   Specifications", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

   [RFC1996] - Vixie, P., "A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone
   Changes (DNS NOTIFY)", RFC 1996, August 1996.

   [RFC2136] - Vixie, P., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y. and J. Bound,
   "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)", RFC 2136,
   April 1997.

   [RFC2181] - Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS
   Specification", RFC 2181, July 1997.

   [RFC2434] - Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
   IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.

   [RFC2671] - Vixie, P., "Extension mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", RFC
   2671, August 1999.

   [RFC2845] - Vixie, P., Gudmundsson, O., Eastlake, D. and B.
   Wellington, "Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)",
   RFC 2845, May 2000.

   [RFC2930] - Eastlake, D., "Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY
   RR)", September 2000.

   [RFC3425] - Lawrence, D., "Obsoleting IQUERY", RFC 3425, November
   2002.

   [RFC3597] - Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record
   (RR) Types", RFC 3597, September 2003.

   [RFC4020] - Kompella, K. and A. Zinin, "Early IANA Allocation of
   Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 4020, February 2005.

   [RFC4033] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
   Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033, March
   2005.

   [RFC4034] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
   Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034,
   March 2005.

   [RFC4035] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
   Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC


D. Eastlake 3rd                                                [Page 17]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations             August 2007


   4035, March 2005.

   [RFC4635] - D. Eastlake 3rd, "HMAC SHA (Hashed Message Authentication
   Code, Secure Hash Algorithm) TSIG Algorithm Identifiers".

   [US-ASCII] - ANSI, "USA Standard Code for Information Interchange",
   X3.4, American National Standards Institute: New York, 1968.



Informative References

   [Dyer1987] - Dyer, S., and F. Hsu, "Hesiod", Project Athena Technical
   Plan - Name Service, April 1987,

   [Moon1981] - D. Moon, "Chaosnet", A.I. Memo 628, Massachusetts
   Institute of Technology Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, June
   1981.

   [RFC1183] - Everhart, C., Mamakos, L., Ullmann, R., and P.
   Mockapetris, "New DNS RR Definitions", RFC 1183, October 1990.

   [RFC1591] - Postel, J., "Domain Name System Structure and
   Delegation", RFC 1591, March 1994.

   [RFC2606] - Eastlake, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS
   Names", RFC 2606, June 1999.

   [RFC2673] - Crawford, M., "Binary Labels in the Domain Name System",
   RFC 2673, August 1999.

   [RFC2929] - Eastlake 3rd, D., Brunner-Williams, E., and B. Manning,
   "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations", BCP 42, RFC 2929,
   September 2000.

   [RFC2931] - Eastlake, E., "DNS Request and Transaction Signatures (
   SIG(0)s )", RFC 2931, September 2000.

   [RFC3363] - Bush, R., Durand, A., Fink, B., Gudmundsson, O., and T.
   Hain, "Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) Addresses in
   the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 3363, August 2002.

   [RFC4343] - Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) Case
   Insensitivity Clarification", RFC 4343, December 2005.








D. Eastlake 3rd                                                [Page 18]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations             August 2007


Author's Address

   Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
   Motorola Laboratories
   155 Beaver Street
   Milford, MA 01757 USA

   Telephone:   +1-508-786-7554 (w)
   email:       Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com



Expiration and File Name

   This draft expires February 2008.

   Its file name is draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-06.txt.



Disclaimer

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.























D. Eastlake 3rd                                                [Page 19]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/